Background::Neuronavigation is a very beneficial tool in modern neurosurgical practice. However, the neuronavigation is not available in most of the hospitals in our country raising the question about its importance in localizing the calvarial extra-axial lesions and to what extent it is safe to operate without it.Methods::We studied twenty patients with calvarial extra-axial lesions who underwent surgical interventions. All lesions were preoperatively located with both neuronavigation and the usual linear measurements. Both methods were compared regarding the time consumed to localize the tumor and the accuracy of each method to anticipate the actual center of the tumor.Results::The mean error of distance between the planned center of the tumor and the actual was 6.50 ± 1.762 mm in conventional method, whereas the error was 3.85 ± 1.309 mm in IGS method. Much more time was consumed during the neuronavigation method including booting, registration, and positioning. A statistically significant difference was found between the mean time passed in the conventional method and IGS method (2.05 ± 0.826, 24.90 ± 1.334, respectively), n P-value < 0.001.n Conclusion::In the setting of limited resources, the linear measurement localization method seems to have an accepted accuracy in the localization of calvarial extra-axial lesions and it saves more time than neuronavigation method.“,”Background::Neuronavigation is a very beneficial tool in modern neurosurgical practice. However, the neuronavigation is not available in most of the hospitals in our country raising the question about its importance in localizing the calvarial extra-axial lesions and to what extent it is safe to operate without it.Methods::We studied twenty patients with calvarial extra-axial lesions who underwent surgical interventions. All lesions were preoperatively located with both neuronavigation and the usual linear measurements. Both methods were compared regarding the time consumed to localize the tumor and the accuracy of each method to anticipate the actual center of the tumor.Results::The mean error of distance between the planned center of the tumor and the actual was 6.50 ± 1.762 mm in conventional method, whereas the error was 3.85 ± 1.309 mm in IGS method. Much more time was consumed during the neuronavigation method including booting, registration, and positioning. A statistically significant difference was found between the mean time passed in the conventional method and IGS method (2.05 ± 0.826, 24.90 ± 1.334, respectively), n P-value < 0.001.n Conclusion::In the setting of limited resources, the linear measurement localization method seems to have an accepted accuracy in the localization of calvarial extra-axial lesions and it saves more time than neuronavigation method.